News:

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!We hope you had a blessed Pascha and Bright Week. The OCNet Forum is operating in “Beta Mode” due to a major systems upgrade. A maintenance window is currently in effect and users should expect downtime starting at or before 0000 GMT on May 25th.

hi contarini,thanks for answering my question, it's good to see your carefully thought-out arguments.certainly the influence on the state on the church has been a terrible thing through the ages(yes, i really do think it is that bad).

those churches that have suffered a lot seem to be doing better (like in north africa and west asia) than those that succumbed to a theology of comfort (which is all of us to one degree or another).however, in my (almost) humble opinion, i think one of the churches that suffered most of all from state interference has been the anglican church (i live in uk). despite pockets of beauty and true faith, it seems to be sliding ever more into the sea of liberalism and new age theology. even many of the churches that have icons teach that sex outside marriage is ok, and basically as long as you don't actually kill anyone, other sins aren't so bad.personally, i have had some beautiful experiences of the love of God in anglican churches, however, the general trends worry me.

at the time of a recent bird 'flu scare in the uk, i noticed that many churches (even catholic) had stopped giving the Blood of the Lord in the Holy Communion incase anyone caught germs from using the same cup. i told my orthodox friends about that; we could hardly hold back from laughing! as if the Blood of Christ could give someone bird 'flu...

so, my church is not perfect, but i like the fact that all the theology is clear, and also people have a relationship with God that makes it possible to obey Him.

Absolutely agreed that Anglicanism is perhaps the worst offender in this regard, and for an Anglican to question Orthodox on this point is like the pot calling the kettle black. However, Anglicanism doesn't claim to be the true Church. I became Anglican instead of Catholic or Orthodox not because I thought Anglicanism was superior but primarily because it allowed me to remain in contact with my evangelical heritage. (And at the time my theology was a lot more Augustinian than it is now.)

I became Anglican instead of Catholic or Orthodox not because I thought Anglicanism was superior but primarily because it allowed me to remain in contact with my evangelical heritage.

So is the Truth relative, one just decides on their own what the truth is?

I didn't get that from his post. I know when I personally became Episcopal, a lot of it had to do with a familiar culture. I was raised Baptist, and the Baptists came from a split that came from a split of Anglicanism. And so the culture was more comfortable, because it was more familiar. There is a measure of truth in other traditions. Orthodoxy has the fullness. And so instead of looking at truth as relative, look at it as a difference in degree. A measure of truth can be found everywhere.

« Last Edit: April 04, 2011, 10:53:36 PM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

I became Anglican instead of Catholic or Orthodox not because I thought Anglicanism was superior but primarily because it allowed me to remain in contact with my evangelical heritage.

So is the Truth relative, one just decides on their own what the truth is?

These are two completely different questions--indeed, while you seem to be implying that relativism and deciding "on one's own" are the same thing, I would say it's closer to being the other way round. The only sense in which Truth is "relative" is that one can't decide Truth (certainly not religious truth, and maybe no kind) on one's own. That means that our _perceptions_ of truth are inevitably shaped by the communities to which we belong--and that's something we should embrace rather than fleeing.

In my case, the community that shaped my perception of truth was a weird kind of community--I grew up essentially in a house church with a highly spiritualized understanding of the Church, basically derived from the Wesleyan Holiness movement. When I say that I wanted to remain in touch with my evangelical heritage, I'm saying precisely that I didn't think I could just decide the truth on my own. I am shaped as a Christian by evangelicalism.

When converts to Orthodoxy (or Catholicism) say that they have looked at history and determined that such-and-such church is the True Church, what on earth are they doing but deciding "on their own"?

I became Anglican instead of Catholic or Orthodox not because I thought Anglicanism was superior but primarily because it allowed me to remain in contact with my evangelical heritage.

So is the Truth relative, one just decides on their own what the truth is?

I didn't get that from his post. I know when I personally became Episcopal, a lot of it had to do with a familiar culture. I was raised Baptist, and the Baptists came from a split that came from a split of Anglicanism. And so the culture was more comfortable, because it was more familiar. There is a measure of truth in other traditions. Orthodoxy has the fullness. And so instead of looking at truth as relative, look at it as a difference in degree. A measure of truth can be found everywhere.

Right. I should say that familiarity of culture isn't the big deal for me. I have spent quite a bit of time in Romania and I love Eastern European culture and Byzantine liturgy. It isn't that I find Orthodoxy too alien, but that the evangelical tradition as represented by, say, the hymns of Charles Wesley seems to me to be an important part of historic Christianity, and any vision of the Church that doesn't recognize this is an imperfect one.

hi contarini,thanks for answering my question, it's good to see your carefully thought-out arguments.certainly the influence on the state on the church has been a terrible thing through the ages(yes, i really do think it is that bad).

those churches that have suffered a lot seem to be doing better (like in north africa and west asia) than those that succumbed to a theology of comfort (which is all of us to one degree or another).however, in my (almost) humble opinion, i think one of the churches that suffered most of all from state interference has been the anglican church (i live in uk). despite pockets of beauty and true faith, it seems to be sliding ever more into the sea of liberalism and new age theology. even many of the churches that have icons teach that sex outside marriage is ok, and basically as long as you don't actually kill anyone, other sins aren't so bad.personally, i have had some beautiful experiences of the love of God in anglican churches, however, the general trends worry me.

at the time of a recent bird 'flu scare in the uk, i noticed that many churches (even catholic) had stopped giving the Blood of the Lord in the Holy Communion incase anyone caught germs from using the same cup. i told my orthodox friends about that; we could hardly hold back from laughing! as if the Blood of Christ could give someone bird 'flu...

so, my church is not perfect, but i like the fact that all the theology is clear, and also people have a relationship with God that makes it possible to obey Him.

Absolutely agreed that Anglicanism is perhaps the worst offender in this regard, and for an Anglican to question Orthodox on this point is like the pot calling the kettle black. However, Anglicanism doesn't claim to be the true Church. I became Anglican instead of Catholic or Orthodox not because I thought Anglicanism was superior but primarily because it allowed me to remain in contact with my evangelical heritage. (And at the time my theology was a lot more Augustinian than it is now.)

Define the term "True Church". I think we may mean different things.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I mean that community which stands in a covenant relationship with God and thus enjoys the regular and visible use of the means of grace. I think I mean by it precisely what the Orthodox mean when they say that we can confidently affirm grace to come through the sacraments of the Orthodox Church, and must be agnostic at best about grace in other Christian churches. I claim on the other hand that wherever water is applied to people in the name of the Trinity understood as the name of the one God, there sacramental grace can be affirmed to be received, and there the visible Church is truly if imperfectly present.

I mean that community which stands in a covenant relationship with God and thus enjoys the regular and visible use of the means of grace. I think I mean by it precisely what the Orthodox mean when they say that we can confidently affirm grace to come through the sacraments of the Orthodox Church, and must be agnostic at best about grace in other Christian churches. I claim on the other hand that wherever water is applied to people in the name of the Trinity understood as the name of the one God, there sacramental grace can be affirmed to be received, and there the visible Church is truly if imperfectly present.

But how do you know this?

As in, I've frequently heard Orthodox say that we know where the Church is, and has been for a couple of millenia, give or take. But that we don't know where it is not.

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

Right. I should say that familiarity of culture isn't the big deal for me. I have spent quite a bit of time in Romania and I love Eastern European culture and Byzantine liturgy. It isn't that I find Orthodoxy too alien, but that the evangelical tradition as represented by, say, the hymns of Charles Wesley seems to me to be an important part of historic Christianity, and any vision of the Church that doesn't recognize this is an imperfect one.

I guess the response that comes to my mind is, can you not retain the hymns of Charles Wesley as part of your personal life? Why must they be affirmed by the Church in order for you to recognize the validity of the Church? Isn't that sort of subjecting the Church to your will and your opinions?

I sing with a community choir which sings Protestant and Catholic hymns all the time. I don't use them as part of my prayer life or spiritual life, but I certainly love every minute of singing them, often feel edified by them, and many times am moved to tears by the sentiments expressed in them. But senitment has little place within worship and I recognize that those hymns have a proper place in my life. I can certainly understand that for someone from a Protestant background, recognizing such history and hymnography might feel important. I don't see why, with proper guidance from a spiritual father, they couldn't be retained in your life had you become Orthodox. Why must the Church accept them for you to accept the Church? Not trying to convince you to convert, just curious is all.

To take it one step further, I notice that you are of the opinion that the Orthodox Church has maintained sound belief and continuity (hope I'm paraphrasing correctly and not putting words in your mouth!). If that is the case, wouldn't accepting Wesley or other Protestant writers be a compromise of that sound belief and continuity?

Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.Matthew 18:5

I do use the Lutheran Hymns that I learned in my private worship, and with full blessing of my priest. He told me that by an Orthodox Christian singing these hymns, they are sanctified. In fact, he went as far as to say that if some of the pagan practices of the early Slavs were sanctified by the Church and made part of the traditions, why couldn't hymns that were written by people trying to glorify God, but who may not have been part of the Church. "Many sheep have I that are not of this fold, and to them I go also".

Right. I should say that familiarity of culture isn't the big deal for me. I have spent quite a bit of time in Romania and I love Eastern European culture and Byzantine liturgy. It isn't that I find Orthodoxy too alien, but that the evangelical tradition as represented by, say, the hymns of Charles Wesley seems to me to be an important part of historic Christianity, and any vision of the Church that doesn't recognize this is an imperfect one.

I guess the response that comes to my mind is, can you not retain the hymns of Charles Wesley as part of your personal life? Why must they be affirmed by the Church in order for you to recognize the validity of the Church? Isn't that sort of subjecting the Church to your will and your opinions?

I sing with a community choir which sings Protestant and Catholic hymns all the time. I don't use them as part of my prayer life or spiritual life, but I certainly love every minute of singing them, often feel edified by them, and many times am moved to tears by the sentiments expressed in them. But senitment has little place within worship and I recognize that those hymns have a proper place in my life. I can certainly understand that for someone from a Protestant background, recognizing such history and hymnography might feel important. I don't see why, with proper guidance from a spiritual father, they couldn't be retained in your life had you become Orthodox. Why must the Church accept them for you to accept the Church? Not trying to convince you to convert, just curious is all.

To take it one step further, I notice that you are of the opinion that the Orthodox Church has maintained sound belief and continuity (hope I'm paraphrasing correctly and not putting words in your mouth!). If that is the case, wouldn't accepting Wesley or other Protestant writers be a compromise of that sound belief and continuity?

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

I mean that community which stands in a covenant relationship with God and thus enjoys the regular and visible use of the means of grace. I think I mean by it precisely what the Orthodox mean when they say that we can confidently affirm grace to come through the sacraments of the Orthodox Church, and must be agnostic at best about grace in other Christian churches. I claim on the other hand that wherever water is applied to people in the name of the Trinity understood as the name of the one God, there sacramental grace can be affirmed to be received, and there the visible Church is truly if imperfectly present.

Okay.. I think that is a good definition.

We also have the saying: "We know where the Church is, we cant say for certain where it isn't."

So we would see the Anglican Church as a "maybe" and the Orthodox Church as "definably". This would not be due to every decision we make being obviously better or all the decisions of Christians outside The Church as being bad or inferior.

Many people leave the Anglican Church for the Orthodox Church ( My Priest, his family and my new wife for example) because they desire to know the Apostolic Roots of Christianity and to be part of that. The Orthodox Church has a far better case for being the actual Historic Church.

If that is the case then one would need to show how and when The Church, the same one founded on the day of Pentecost... either disbanded or fell into such sin that it negated all the protections and grace assigned to it in Scripture.... I think that's a tall order.

You said:

I claim on the other hand that wherever water is applied to people in the name of the Trinity understood as the name of the one God, there sacramental grace can be affirmed to be received, and there the visible Church

That's a personal opinion. Welcome to Protestantism. This formula is not supported by Holy Tradition or Scripture. I apologize if this sounds snarky, but what else about Christian Practice do you wish to alter? Will you be coming out with a Catechism?

The reason we advise people to stick with Orthodox Christianity as is has been practiced over the centuries and not rewrite the religion is that The Church produces results. It makes Saints, it heals spiritually and sometimes physically and miracles abound. It is your best chance to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. All other paths, no matter how well intentioned are risky at best.

« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 11:39:35 AM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

When converts to Orthodoxy (or Catholicism) say that they have looked at history and determined that such-and-such church is the True Church, what on earth are they doing but deciding "on their own"?

Edwin

Good point.

I guess I wouldn't say that it was "deciding on their own" as much as it is critically analyzing and weighing the evidence to the best of our ability. No one has absolute proof. No one has absolute proof of God's existence, let alone where the True and Complete Church exists on this earth. Evidence can take us only so far and that's when faith steps in. As I move forward into embracing Orthodoxy, I will say that I *believe*...with all of my heart and my mind and my soul...that She is the True Church, as established by the Apostles and maintained through the generations by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

When converts to Orthodoxy (or Catholicism) say that they have looked at history and determined that such-and-such church is the True Church, what on earth are they doing but deciding "on their own"?

Edwin

Good point.

I guess I wouldn't say that it was "deciding on their own" as much as it is critically analyzing and weighing the evidence to the best of our ability. No one has absolute proof. No one has absolute proof of God's existence, let alone where the True and Complete Church exists on this earth. Evidence can take us only so far and that's when faith steps in. As I move forward into embracing Orthodoxy, I will say that I *believe*...with all of my heart and my mind and my soul...that She is the True Church, as established by the Apostles and maintained through the generations by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

That's my take as well. There is an element of objectivity present in comparing and contrasting what the Church has said through her Saints throughout history as opposed to reading the Bible and deciding for myself what it means. It's not that truth is relative and one can decide for themselves, it's that truth is verified by the Church and one can determine for themselves what the Church has said in an objective sense.

I guess the response that comes to my mind is, can you not retain the hymns of Charles Wesley as part of your personal life? Why must they be affirmed by the Church in order for you to recognize the validity of the Church? Isn't that sort of subjecting the Church to your will and your opinions?

I have often thought the great hymns of Protestantism are what I would miss most if I became Orthodox or Catholic. However, as you say, I could retain them as part of my personal life. When my family gets together, we often sing hymns at home, and I could continue to do that if I was no longer Protestant.

Of course, the hymns are not much of a Protestant anchor anymore, as at least the evangelical churches of my own experience have largely abandoned them in favor of more modern music.

To go back to the original question, I have not yet converted to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy. I was very interested in becoming Catholic before I even considered Orthodoxy, so I do not think any lingering anti-Catholicism has influenced me overly much. I still do not know which way to go, or even if it matters. If it comes down to preference (which it may, in the end; I am not infallible in matters of faith and morals), I prefer Orthodox doctrine and liturgy. However, many of the Christians I most admire (J.R.R. Tolkien, G.K. Chesterton, and Thomas Howard, to name a few) are Catholic, so I feel a strong pull to be in communion with these fine people.

I have often thought the great hymns of Protestantism are what I would miss most if I became Orthodox or Catholic. However, as you say, I could retain them as part of my personal life.

I have sung in church choirs since I was a child, and music, especially the Sacred Harp music, speaks directly to my heart of God and faith. I was formerly Lutheran and the Lutheran church used to be called the "singing church." I too thought that I would miss the good old hymns that I had sung all my life. The reality is, not so much...The Orthodox hymnology knocks it out of the park! Especially the great hymns of Pascha!

‘O strange Orthodox Church, so poor and so weak, at the same time so traditional and yet so free, so archaic and yet so alive, so ritualistic and yet so personally mystical, Church where the pearl of great price of the Gospel is preciously preserved, sometimes beneath a layer of dust — Church that has so often proved incapable of action, yet which knows, as no other, how to sing the joy of Easter.’ — Fr Lev Gillet, ‘A Monk of the Eastern Church’

« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 09:37:59 AM by katherineofdixie »

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

When converts to Orthodoxy (or Catholicism) say that they have looked at history and determined that such-and-such church is the True Church, what on earth are they doing but deciding "on their own"?

Edwin

Good point.

Not quite the same. And certainly not the same as rejecting the beliefs and praxis of that True Church, based solely on one's opinions and "feelings."

For you the EO is the "True Church". For some RC persons here they are in the "True Church". Other people believe that they are in the "True Church" (as can be read in some threads here). The claim to be such is one that a person might accept or not.

Edwin, I think that your point is a good one.

With respect,

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

For you the EO is the "True Church". For some RC persons here they are in the "True Church". Other people believe that they are in the "True Church" (as can be read in some threads here). The claim to be such is one that a person might accept or not.

Edwin, I think that your point is a good one.

With respect,

Ebor

Anyone may believe or feel anything that they wish. I myself believe that I am a dead-ringer for Angelina Jolie. However, if one rejects the Orthodox belief that it is the True Church, is it according to Orthodox definition and understanding of the term, or a "feeling" that any Church I belong to is the True Church?

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

I can echo many here in that the issue of the Papacy was a big factor when I began seriously exploring Eastern Orthodoxy 7-8 years ago after briefly considering the RCC. In my case, there may have been an anti-RCC bias at play, because in my Southern Baptist days I owned such books as "A Woman Rides the Beast" (Hunt) and "Two Babylons" (Hislop). However, when I began questioning the Baptist distinctives I grew up with (ie Once-saved-always saved; Zwinglian memorialism, believers-only baptism) after reading some of the church fathers, I actually wanted to give Rome a fair shake, since it was reading some of the RC apologists' arguments on certain topics (in response to the obnoxiously Calvinist James White) that convinced me that much of what I thought about the RCC was incorrect.

At the end of the day, though I read such books as Ray's "Upon this Rock", I found the historical evidence for papal supremacy (let alone papal infallibility) lacking. Although it would have been much more convenient to go to the local RCC parish than to drive an hour away to the nearest EOC one, I couldn't in good conscience subscribe to papal infallibility. I sided with the East on the issue of the papacy and the filoque (plus I thought Rome over-dogmatized certain Marian beliefs). Ultimately, after even being an Eastern Orthodox catechumen for about 1-2 months, I didn't end up crossing the Bosphorus. However, on these particular issues that have divided East and West. I still side with the East, although I am definitely more western on certain other emphases.

For you the EO is the "True Church". For some RC persons here they are in the "True Church". Other people believe that they are in the "True Church" (as can be read in some threads here). The claim to be such is one that a person might accept or not.

Edwin, I think that your point is a good one.

With respect,

Ebor

Anyone may believe or feel anything that they wish. I myself believe that I am a dead-ringer for Angelina Jolie. However, if one rejects the Orthodox belief that it is the True Church, is it according to Orthodox definition and understanding of the term, or a "feeling" that any Church I belong to is the True Church?

I do not mean anything against you personally is this, I assure you, but a belief on one's identical appearance to another person can be seen (or not) by others and comparisons of features would show the similarities or differences. And (again meaning no offense) if the resemblance is not there, then the person believing it is not correct.

On a Church's claim that it is the "True" one, just making the claim doesn't mean that it's true either. Why would a person be required to accept this claim without question?

With respect,

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

For you the EO is the "True Church". For some RC persons here they are in the "True Church". Other people believe that they are in the "True Church" (as can be read in some threads here). The claim to be such is one that a person might accept or not.

Edwin, I think that your point is a good one.

With respect,

Ebor

Anyone may believe or feel anything that they wish. I myself believe that I am a dead-ringer for Angelina Jolie. However, if one rejects the Orthodox belief that it is the True Church, is it according to Orthodox definition and understanding of the term, or a "feeling" that any Church I belong to is the True Church?

I do not mean anything against you personally is this, I assure you, but a belief on one's identical appearance to another person can be seen (or not) by others and comparisons of features would show the similarities or differences. And (again meaning no offense) if the resemblance is not there, then the person believing it is not correct.

On a Church's claim that it is the "True" one, just making the claim doesn't mean that it's true either. Why would a person be required to accept this claim without question?

With respect,

Ebor

Sorry the humor (? intended, anyway, so perhaps I get points for trying?) passed you by. I'll attempt to be more serious in future conversations.

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

I can only speak to my own experiences. When I began to discover the early church, study about Christian history, and the like, I eventually ended up choosing Catholicism, despite have a Baptist and Pentecostal background. I has already begun to question Baptist and Pentecostal distinctives as well. This is also despite the fact that when I had to write a research paper on the Gospel of John in seminary, my research led me to believe that from a "Bible alone" perspective, the Orthodox Church was correct on Flioque, and the west erred.

I ended up choosing Rome because at the time, Papal infallibility seemed like the best way to deal with the problems caused by Sola Scriptura. I also thought purgatory solved the issue of having unconfessed sin upon death. Protestants don't have a good answer for this unless you go to a "Once saved always saved" route.

If anything, I should have considered Orthodoxy more than I did back then, but didn't because it was too foreign and eastern, and not as accessible here in the West. I had an anti-Orthodox prejudice more than anti-Catholic. Now I am considering Orthodoxy, along with returning to Catholicism. Anglicanism is nice and there is alot to love, but I starting to doubt if it is truly apostolic.

yeah, as it was started by a guy who had his wife's head chopped off and wanted to divorce another wife coz she gave birth to a girl instead of a boy.

LOL Henry was no saint thats for sure. Actually he comes across as a real pig to me. Its debatable whether Henry actually founded the Anglican church in the truest sense. He was not a support of the Protestant reformation, and it was Elizabeth 1st who really finalized CoE's split with Rome, after Queen Mary attempted to bring England back to the Roman fold.

yeah, sorry i couldn't resist replying to your wonderings about the anglican church being apostolic. it just seemed fairly clear to me that it wasn't!i was an anglican twice, the second time a proper member, voting in the parish council meetings, so i am the first to accept there have been lots of good things in the anglican church. just being an apostolic church is not one of them!it is really painful to watch what is going on currently in the anglican church, especially as i know some anglican priests who are finding it harder and harder to stay in the church.my advice (in case you were asking, which you probably weren't!) is to leave slowly, leading many people to orthodoxy as you go.

yeah, sorry i couldn't resist replying to your wonderings about the anglican church being apostolic. it just seemed fairly clear to me that it wasn't!i was an anglican twice, the second time a proper member, voting in the parish council meetings, so i am the first to accept there have been lots of good things in the anglican church. just being an apostolic church is not one of them!it is really painful to watch what is going on currently in the anglican church, especially as i know some anglican priests who are finding it harder and harder to stay in the church.my advice (in case you were asking, which you probably weren't!) is to leave slowly, leading many people to orthodoxy as you go.

Interesting insight, I should be thinking beyond myself in all this. I could perhaps do that, if I indeed decided on Orthodoxy-no I'm not saying that I believe truth is relative, but I'm only going to join Orthodoxy because I am convinced it is right, and I am prepared to take time to make that decision. I want it to be a rock solid one.

I have not read any part of this thread aside from the OP, so I'm sure this post is out of context entirely.

I've thought the reason that Protestants convert to Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism is because Orthodoxy contains everything that any Protestant in the right mind would want (liturgy, the Eucharist, etc.) without having to accept the Pope, since the Protestant upbringing would naturally leave them with a revulsion to the office of the papacy, and Orthodoxy with its apostolic nature is able to provide for them without having to struggle with the papacy.

I can to an extant understand the struggle with the papacy. I am a cradle Catholic who went/goes (I'm an older teenager) to Catholic school, and suffered under the infamously awful religious education. I went through a long period of religious doubt that sent me on a painful search for truth that led me back where I was to begin with, after a long study on religion, leaving me a theology nerd. One of the questions I ran into, once I had finally reaffirmed in my mind the truth of Christianity, was the role of the papacy and responding to arguments against it, virtually all from Protestants, I didn't know much at all about Orthodoxy back then. Long story short, I read a lot and accepted the Pope. I'm not sure how well a ramble about how I accepted the papacy is going to be taken on an EO forum.

The point is I'm convinced that the reason for the OP's question is because of a struggle with the idea of the papacy, which affects a large number of people.

Logged

Let us who mystically represent the cherubim and sing the thrice-holy hymn unto the life-giving Trinity now lay aside all earthly care. Amen. That we may receive the King of All escorted invisibly by angelic hosts. Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia.

I've thought the reason that Protestants convert to Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism is because Orthodoxy contains everything that any Protestant in the right mind would want (liturgy, the Eucharist, etc.) without having to accept the Pope, since the Protestant upbringing would naturally leave them with a revulsion to the office of the papacy, and Orthodoxy with its apostolic nature is able to provide for them without having to struggle with the papacy.

Its debatable whether Henry actually founded the Anglican church in the truest sense.

Interesting. I've encountered the Henry-VIII-founded-Anglicanism view on this forum before. I've pretty much dismissed it as the raving of some unecumenical Orthodox posters; but if even you (an Anglican) think it's "debatable", then perhaps I should consider it.

Its debatable whether Henry actually founded the Anglican church in the truest sense.

Interesting. I've encountered the Henry-VIII-founded-Anglicanism view on this forum before. I've pretty much dismissed it as the raving of some unecumenical Orthodox posters; but if even you (an Anglican) think it's "debatable", then perhaps I should consider it.

I don't think it's debatable that Henry VIII actions were the immediate cause for the creation of the Anglican church. At the same time the creation and subsequent theological defining of this church depended on the efforts of many reformers, some of whom were sincere and not necessarily sharing in Henry's base motivations.

Logged

“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it? Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Its debatable whether Henry actually founded the Anglican church in the truest sense.

Interesting. I've encountered the Henry-VIII-founded-Anglicanism view on this forum before. I've pretty much dismissed it as the raving of some unecumenical Orthodox posters; but if even you (an Anglican) think it's "debatable", then perhaps I should consider it.

I don't think it's debatable that Henry VIII actions were the immediate cause for the creation of the Anglican church.

Do you also think that the Catholic Church was created by Cardinal Humbert in the 11th century (or perhaps by Pope Eugene in the 15th century)?

Its debatable whether Henry actually founded the Anglican church in the truest sense.

Interesting. I've encountered the Henry-VIII-founded-Anglicanism view on this forum before. I've pretty much dismissed it as the raving of some unecumenical Orthodox posters; but if even you (an Anglican) think it's "debatable", then perhaps I should consider it.

I don't think it's debatable that Henry VIII actions were the immediate cause for the creation of the Anglican church.

Do you also think that the Catholic Church was created by Cardinal Humbert in the 11th century (or perhaps by Pope Eugene in the 15th century)?

I'm just trying to gauge how much stock I should put in your ideas.

Are you trying to argue that the Anglican church is simply the natural continuation of the English Catholic Church (I have seen Anglicans try to make this claim)?

I do of course consider your "Catholic Church" to be a schism from the true Catholic Church. Exactly when to date the schism, or whom to attribute it to, is a more complicated question.

Logged

“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it? Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Do you also think that the Catholic Church was created by Cardinal Humbert in the 11th century (or perhaps by Pope Eugene in the 15th century)?

You are asking me whom the schism should be attributed to. As I said, I think it's a more complicated question than that of the origin of the Anglican church.

Logged

“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it? Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”